General Orchid Taxonomy

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

quietaustralian

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
669
Reaction score
0
Location
Thái Nguyên, Việt Nam
Dear Mick,
I send Guido your question.
Perhaps he will answer.

Best greetings

Olaf
Thankyou Olaf,

Olaf,
Do you have any recent information about Paph helenae forma delicatum? Are these plants in cultivation? Have you seen any pictures of the plants other than those that accompanied the description?

Regards and thanks, Mick
 
O

ORG

Guest
Dear Heather and Mick,
Guido answered and wrote that he would particpate agin when there is an interest for and when he would get an invitation for the participation.

I tried to translate his words correctly.

About Paph. helenae forma delicatum. I have no more information aboutt. I heard only that some plants came in trade in Europe but that these plants were no delicatum, only typical helenae.

Best greetings

Olaf
 
E

Eric Muehlbauer

Guest
I would love to see Guido back on this forum. (Please don't hate me for it, Uri....) Guido is no doubt a polarizing personality, but he really does know a lot, and if people could just hold back from encouraging his belligerent side, there is much to be learned from him.
 

valenzino

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
827
Reaction score
3
I will be interested in opinions and information about the difference between Paph.violascens and Paph. bouganvillieanum.In my opinion,Paph.bouganvillieanum,even if is quite different,can be considered a variety of Paph.violascens.

Thanks
 
B

Braem

Guest
You are not alone with that opinion, and Henry Oakeley and I also expressed that view in our recently published "Paphiopedilum species - The essential Guide". But that takes us back to one of the main problems of plant taxonomy ... how different do two entities have to be to be considered as two autonomous entities?
 

valenzino

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
827
Reaction score
3
Thanks Dr.Braem,
I understand the problem,and I am not shure about what its best.
But I will try to group some species under varietal names to make more "intuitive" and easy this system that sometimes is tricky.Will also be easy for the peoples that are new to a group to try to understand the evolution of the plant in certain areas.(like for example,the barbigerum group that its really confusing).
 
B

Braem

Guest
It all depends what side you are on. If you live off selling species, you would want it to be a separate species ...
At the end of the day, the problem for a hobbyist is nonexistant. Whether you have the plant as P. bougainvilleanum or as P. violascens var. bougainvillenum or as P. violascens subspecies bougainvilleanum or as P. violascens forma bougainvilleanum ... does not change the plant. And that is the same for hookerae and volonteanum, and many other "complexes". The problem also is with the hybrids ... as various "varieties" will give quite distinct hybrids ... and that is a serious issue for hybrid taxonomy. Thus, the issue is far more complex than most people realize.
 
E

Eric Muehlbauer

Guest
So Guido...what's your take on "viniferum"....a valid species or "just another callosum"?
 
B

Braem

Guest
viniferum

let me put it this way: I have serious doubts whether that should be considered an autonomous species.
 

Pete

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
0
Location
Hawai'i
thank you much for your commentary and opinions Guido
 

valenzino

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
827
Reaction score
3
Thanks,yes hybrids taxonomy is extremely complicate,and getting worst,I understand.
What do you think about Paphiopedilum canhii?
In jannuary I was in Asia and had the luck to see one in flower.Its really something different.Do you think is correct to put it in barbata group or new group should be created for it?
 
B

Braem

Guest
Paph canhii

When I first saw a picture of P. canhii my thoughts went towards hybrids ... but I simply have too little information about the plant. Dr. Oakeley and I have chosen not to include it in "Paphiopedilum species - the essential Guide". If however, I ever see a picture of it growing in the wild, I will be more than happy to accept it as a natural entity.

Just a little comment about the naming: the species name is given by whoever publishes the species. Thus P. canhii MAY mean that Mr. Canh found the plant. Phrag. kovachii was not discovered ny M. kovach, and P. braemii was not discovered by me, etc. etc. Thus, to deduce facts from a name can be a bit tricky.
 

valenzino

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
827
Reaction score
3
Thanks Dr. Braem,
When I first seen the photos I immediately thinked of a new genuine specie.There are photos of the plant in the wild.Mr Cahn also is posting them on this Forum or you can find them googling.I think is very interesting plant,someway primitive between parvisepalums and barbata types...but also have some characteristics of others and some unique to it....

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19039&highlight=canhii&page=4

About names,I will be more happy with a "descriptive" ones instead of nameing them with "human" names(less rage in nameing new plants,so less confusion,and more intuitive understanding of the topic,with easy memory access...)...but in reality i dont care a lot about why are like this....There are no name tags in the jungle :) !!
 
M

Marc

Guest
When I first saw a picture of P. canhii my thoughts went towards hybrids ... but I simply have too little information about the plant. Dr. Oakeley and I have chosen not to include it in "Paphiopedilum species - the essential Guide". If however, I ever see a picture of it growing in the wild, I will be more than happy to accept it as a natural entity.
Dr. Braem, in the photography section there is a topic regarding canhii atm. I included a link in that thread which links to a japanese orchid society page. It shows photo's made during a presentation that included Paph. canhii.

There were in situ pics included in the presentation:

http://www.orchid.or.jp/orchid/society/paphio/saloon-62.htm

In that canhii topic on the forum here it was mentioned that it was presentation given by Dr. Tanaka.

I can't vouch for the reliability of the photo's or the info in general though.
 
B

Braem

Guest
Thanks for the message ... I wonder why it is not included in the Kew list?
 

quietaustralian

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
669
Reaction score
0
Location
Thái Nguyên, Việt Nam
When I first saw a picture of P. canhii my thoughts went towards hybrids ... but I simply have too little information about the plant. Dr. Oakeley and I have chosen not to include it in "Paphiopedilum species - the essential Guide". If however, I ever see a picture of it growing in the wild, I will be more than happy to accept it as a natural entity.

Just a little comment about the naming: the species name is given by whoever publishes the species. Thus P. canhii MAY mean that Mr. Canh found the plant. Phrag. kovachii was not discovered ny M. kovach, and P. braemii was not discovered by me, etc. etc. Thus, to deduce facts from a name can be a bit tricky.
Dr. Braem
When I first saw a picture of P. canhii I thought it was a freak hybrid too. Although I haven't seen canhii in-situ, I have seen enough freshly collected plants in a remote location to now make me believe otherwise and Dr Tanaka's pictures certainly don't looked staged.

Regards, Mick
 

Latest posts

Top